On Feb 6, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> (1) We consider /etc/paths to be a "system file". We don't like modifying
> system files.
> (2) Modifying /etc/paths affects all users' settings, which is undesirable.
Actually it is desirable, or it has at least been desired by some users
> (1) We consider /etc/paths to be a "system file". We don't like modifying
> system files.
Undertstood; I was thinking of the /etc/paths.d directory.
> (2) Modifying /etc/paths affects all users' settings, which is undesirable.
Ahh ... Very good. Not all users will want that.
>
> vq
---
Ente
On Feb 6, 2015, at 1:49 PM, Michael wrote:
> On 2015-02-06, at 10:25 AM, Luc Bourhis wrote:
>
>> Not launchd, no. It's for the shell and it helps with MANPATH too. "man
>> path_helper" for the details.
>
> Interesting. I'm surprised MacPorts doesn't stuff something in there.
(1) We consider
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Michael wrote:
> Interesting. I'm surprised MacPorts doesn't stuff something in there.
In the past, it forced paths from /etc/paths after the system ones, whereas
people tend to want MacPorts installs to override system ones. I don't know
if this is still true.
On 2015-02-06, at 10:25 AM, Luc Bourhis wrote:
>
> On 6 Feb 2015, at 19:21, Michael wrote:
>
>>> Shame on me! You are right. This is a new computer and /etc/paths did not
>>> get copied from the old one as I thought. Sorry for the noise and thanks for
>>> your patience!
>>
>> /etc/paths?
>>
On Fri, 6 Feb 2015, Michael wrote:
> /etc/paths? This is the first I've seen any indication of this. Where is
> this documented? Is this the apple-approved way to add stuff to PATH for
> programs run by launchD?
And what other little secrets are there? I've learned more about OSX from
reading
On 6 Feb 2015, at 19:21, Michael wrote:
>> Shame on me! You are right. This is a new computer and /etc/paths did not
>> get copied from the old one as I thought. Sorry for the noise and thanks for
>> your patience!
>
> /etc/paths?
> This is the first I've seen any indication of this. Where is
>Shame on me! You are right. This is a new computer and /etc/paths did not
> get copied from the old one as I thought. Sorry for the noise and thanks for
> your patience!
/etc/paths?
This is the first I've seen any indication of this. Where is this documented?
Is this the apple-approved way to ad
On Friday February 06 2015 09:24:56 Michael wrote:
> Mono's library dependencies:
> Library Dependencies: gettext, glib2, libiconv, zlib, libgdiplus, xorg-libX11
If mono depends on X11 directly and not through GTk2, then it won't be as easy
to avoid the dependency as I thought ...
> And, Gtk2 a
The standard library includes the GUI components, and I don't think current
>> versions make it very easy to split out just the C# compiler and basic
>> libraries.
>
> And I'd guess that C# doesn't make a lot of sense without being able to use
> GUI thingies.
>
> However, Mono uses GTk2, no? And
On Friday February 06 2015 11:33:22 Brandon Allbery wrote:
> The standard library includes the GUI components, and I don't think current
> versions make it very easy to split out just the C# compiler and basic
> libraries.
And I'd guess that C# doesn't make a lot of sense without being able to us
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Michael wrote:
> I'm trying to install a program that needs mono, because it's written for
> C#.
> So, I try to install mono from macports.
> ... and it wants to pull in all of X11? Does C# really require X11?
>
The standard library includes the GUI components, a
I'm trying to install a program that needs mono, because it's written for C#.
So, I try to install mono from macports.
... and it wants to pull in all of X11? Does C# really require X11?
---
Entertaining minecraft videos
http://YouTube.com/keybounce
_
13 matches
Mail list logo
